DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC. No. 296 of 22-06-2012

Decided on 12-10-2012

Deepak Kumar aged about 28 years S/o Gian Chand, R/o Bank Bazar, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office : IFFCO Sadan C1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017 ; through its CMD.

2. The Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Opposite Nirankari Bhawan, G.T. Road, Bathinda.

   .......Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that his Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. PB-45-5140 Model 2006 was insured with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 for the IDV of Rs. 25,000/- vide policy No. 72838566, Cover Note No. 709110359 for the period from 17-05-2010 to 16-05-2011. The said motorcycle was stolen on 30-10-2010 by some unidentified person when it was parked near Mittal Mall, and FIR No. 519 dated 1-1-2010 U/S 379 IPC was registered in this regard at PS Kotwali, Bathinda, on the statement of Amritpal Goyal S/o Mehar Chand, resident of Bathinda, whose vehicle was also stolen on the same day. The complainant as well as police searched for the accused person for recovery of the stolen motorcycle, but could not succeed. Accordingly when the police could not arrest the accused and recover the stolen vehicle, they filed Untraced Report in the case U/S 173 Cr. P.C. On 6-7-2011, which has been accepted. The complainant alleged that he made repeated requests to the opposite parties to settle his insurance claim against the motorcycle in question but they kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, they refused to pay his claim. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to release his insurance claim regarding stolen motorcycle and pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that after receipt of intimation of loss, they deputed Mr. Sandeep Datta as Investigator from Amritsar for investigating the matter. After receiving the report from the said Investigator, the opposite parties sent a request letter dated 8-6-2011 to the complainant for providing necessary documents for processing the claim, but he did not give any reply. Thereafter, the opposite parties have written letters dated 3-10-2011 and 14-11-2011 to complainant for furnishing the required documents, but he failed to do so. Finally, the opposite parties sent a letter dated 6-7-2012 to the complainant mentioning therein that his claim has been approved by the competent authority for a sum of Rs. 23,500/- subject to compliance of certain formalities i.e. original R.C. duly transferred in favour of opposite parties, letter of subrogation, discharge voucher, N.O.C. Issued by Financer if the vehicle was financed from any financier. All these documents be provided within 30 days from the receipt of letter, but he did not file any reply till today. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they are ready to pay the claim of the complainant subject to furnishing the requisite documents to them.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. PB-45-5140 Model 2006 of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties for the IDV of Rs. 25,000/- for the period from 17-05-2010 to 16-05-2011 Ex. C-2. The said motorcycle was stolen on 30-10-2010 by some unidentified person. The complainant intimated the loss to the opposite parties and they deputed the Investigator who submitted his report. The opposite parties are ready to pay the claim amount of Rs. 23,500/- of the complainant.

6. The submission of the complainant is that he has furnished all the required documents, but till today no claim has been paid to him whereas on the other hand, submission of the opposite parties is that they are ready to pay the claim if complainant furnishes the required documents.

7. The opposite parties have pleaded in para No. 6 of written reply that the claim of the complainant has been approved for a sum of Rs. 23,500/- subject to furnishing the documents i.e. original R.C. duly transferred in favour of opposite parties, letter of subrogation, discharge voucher, N.O.C issued by Financier.

8. A perusal of documents placed on file reveals that Ex. C-1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Vide endorsement Ex. C-8 hypothecation stands cancelled and vide Ex. C-9 the registration certificate stands transferred in the name of opposite party No. 2. Ex. C-10 is the No Objection Certificate and Ex. C-11 is the Discharge Voucher. As per Ex. C-9, the registration certificate has been transferred in the name of the opposite parties on 27-7-2012 i.e. during the pendency of this complaint. A perusal of Ex. R-8 to Ex. R-10 reveals that the opposite parties required only R.C. particulars and not the R.C. duly transferred in the name of the opposite parties. The opposite parties demanded original registration certificate duly transferred in their name only on 6-7-2012 vide Ex R-11 and accordingly the complainant got the same done on 27-07-2012. The motorcycle in question was stolen on 30-10-2010 and the claim is yet to be paid to the complainant. Now it proves on file that all the documents which were required by the opposite parties have been furnished by the complainant. Thus, the complainant becomes entitled for the IDV of the vehicle as it is a theft case i.e. total loss. As per Ex. C-2 Imposed Excess : In case of Total loss is minimum of Rs. 1500/-. In this way, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 23,500/- from the opposite parties.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 2,000/- against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 23,500/- being the claim amount to the complainant.

   The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the amount of Rs. 23,500/- from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 22-06-2012 till realization.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

12-10-2012

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member